What
was the damage? The damage was Romney's order for government clerks
to hand out marriage licenses for same-sex marriages. Reportedly,
the order was also for officials to perform these marriages or to
resign, forcing state employees to break state law. (Governors
cannot make laws.)

"The people of this common wealth are not controlled by any
otherlaws than those to which their constitutional
representative body havegiven their consent." (Mass. Const. Part
I, Article X)

Four judges out of seven in the Goodridge trial handed
down an opinion that state legislatures should vote to allow the
issuing of marriage licenses for same-sex marriages. Problem was,
the state lawmakers would not come together to vote on it and Romney
did not choose to force them to. Instead he took matters into his
own hands and made his now infamous orders, then claimed he had
to do it.

Reports have it that Romney had planned all along to help out
this less-than-righteous cause. A 1994 letter by Romney during a
senate race has him pledging to be a "bigger supporter of
homosexuals" than the incumbent senator. Rojo, an online site,
quotes Tony Perkins (president of the Family Research Council) as
having said Romney will, "have a hard time overcoming this." --2009
Update on Tony Perkins: Tony Perkins has since backed Romney. The
Rojo page with the quote on it, went missing sometime during the
election. The Family Research Council can no longer be trusted.

A recently publicized letter submitted to Romney
before he left office, asserts discrepancies between his orders and
the state constitution, using excerpts
from the constitution and court
rulings. While refuting Romney's actions, it urged
him to reverse the resulting offense to the state
constitution and rule of law before leaving office.

The
letter, the work of numerous activists and
attorneys, overseen by www.massresistance.org, and headed up by the Parents’ Rights Coalition, is
said to have been signed by forty-four signatories, some of whom are
quite prominent in the conservative movement. It calls into
question Romney's legal stance that he
opposed same-sex marriage. Pointing out
that the state statute forbids such and that only
state legislature can make laws, it attests that
Romney went beyond his constitutional authority, even
beyond the expectations of the collective liberal opinion of the
four judges.

On January 2nd, Massachusetts lawmakers kept alive a proposed
constitutional amendment that would put a stop to
same-sex marriages. It is the first vote for approval that is
needed for the amendment to appear on the ballot in 2008. As long as
it is approved by the next legislative session, it will then be put
on the ballot for Massachusetts's voters in 2008. However, reports
of 8,000 same-sex marriages that already exist in Massachusetts
would remain to be treated as legal.

To date, Mitt Romney has
not responded to the hand delivered letter to the governor's office.
However, it is obvious that nothing pertaining to same-sex marriage
was reversed before he left that office. The letter is said to
be part of an ongoing effort to correct the wrong
done.

Along with an amendment to the state constitution denouncing
such 'marriages,' there needs to be a declaration stating
that marriage licenses issued for same-sex
marriages in Massachusetts are, in fact, in violation of state
law and are therefore not legally
binding.

"Error is a stranger to no man. Courage to correct
errors, visits only a
few."

The Letter To RomneyDecember of
2006Edited by Debra J.M. Smith for
brief conciseness; From the original signed
letter, written by John
Haskins.(The original version: Click Here.)

To:Governor Mitt Romney

It
is of grave importance to the future respect of the
constitution of the great state of Massachusetts,
and the people thereof, that in these last few weeks
left in your term as governor, you take firm action on
the issue of same-sex "marriage." As governor,
you have the authority to reverse what has been
done.

We
are not seeking by way of this letter to argue the issue of
same sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, but rather
the way in which it was executed into
practice. The facts pointed out in this letter call
for an immediate end to the distribution of same-sex
"marriage" licenses in Massachusetts and
the nullification of those licenses previously
issued in direct violation of Massachusetts's law,
rendering them illegal.

The
Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role
in marriage policy:

"All causes of marriage shall be heard and
determined by the governor and council, until the legislature
shall, by law, make other provision." (Part the second, Ch.
III, Article V.)

In
hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four
of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts courts have admitted on other occasions that
neither they, nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized
to violate the Constitution:

"(The
words of the Constitution) are mandatory and not simply
directory.They are highly important. There
must be compliance with them."(Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)

Nevertheless,
after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the
citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no
choice but to "execute the law." However, there was no
law, but rather the judges' collective opinion.
(Judges do not make laws.)

It
is imperative for you as the governor of
Massachusetts to uphold the state constitution,
which requires treating an
unconstitutional judiciary ruling as void (as President
Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison).An unconstitutional ruling is grounds to be
seen as an illegal ruling; in this case it was a
ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs
(Abraham Lincoln refused to accept the Dred Scott ruling as
law, pointing out that judges do not make
law).

By
asserting that the court's opinion was a "law" and thus
binding, instead of using the
constitutional legislature avenue for making
laws, you issued the first same-sex marriage licenses in
American history and inadvertently did so
illegally.

The
MassachusettsConstitution
does not confirm your statements or your actions:

"The people of this commonwealth are
not controllable by any other laws than those to which their
constitutional representative body have given their
consent."
(PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

The
Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that
the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow
suspended or nullified by the four judges:

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of
the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature,
or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such
particular cases only as the legislature shall
expressly provide for."(PART THE
FIRST, Article XX.)

Under
the Massachusetts Constitution judges cannot suspend or
alter statutes.This principle is
clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and
is restated in multiple ways.

"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and
executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a
government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article
XXX.)

We
note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely
protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws
passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution
itself was ratified cannot be suspended by
judges:

"All the laws which have
heretofore been adopted, used and approved . shall still
remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the
legislature."
(PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)

Even
this same court is forced to admit:

"The Constitution as framed is the only
guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people
alone."(Opinion of the Justices, 220
Mass.
613, 618)

We
note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767:
"laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go
according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he
Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will
of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of
Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never
to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries
of express law, into the wide fields of
discretion."

Regarding your statements
of the authority of Goodridge and 180-day
instruction to the Legislature (which is illegal to begin
with), the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot
issue an order to the legislature or the governor:

"The courts [instructing] when and how to
perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available
against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."
"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts
Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from
intruding into the power and function of another branch of
government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31,
31 n.3, 35 (1992)

We
also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional
overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is "not only not
warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded." (Commonwealth v.
Leis)

We
note that even the Goodridge majority said they were
not suspending the marriage statute:

"Here,
no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an
appropriate form of relief."

In
fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the
Massachusetts General Laws, same-sex marriage is illegal: "We
conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be
construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

Moreover,
we note there is nothing in the Goodridge
ruling asked or pretended to authorize thegovernor to violate the statute in the event that the
Legislature would not repeal it.

We
also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts
General Laws and has never been stricken, suspended or
nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your
obligation:

"But
the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches
[of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as
concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it
without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished
only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the
governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519
(1916)

Nevertheless,
with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you
ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on
marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A"
and "Partner B."Stunningly, you later
admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change
birth certificates in a similar manner.

We
note that despite the court's admission that the statute
prohibits same-sex marriage, and the Constitution's statement
that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered
officials to perform same-sex marriages and thus violate the
statute (a crime under c. 207 §48) and the oath of office.
(Those who refused to go against their faith beliefs and or
the laws of the state, you ordered to resign.)

This
emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of
Boston, to boast publicly that they would
break
the law by "marrying" out-of-state same-sex couples - also a
crime under c. 207 §48.

In
summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is
unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute
and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed
or repealed it. Therefore:

1.The
marriage statute is still in effect.

2.The
statute continues to prohibit same-sex
marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to
execute court opinions, but rather laws and the
Constitution.The same Massachusetts high
court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be
faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an
event or contingency for which no provision has been made does
not justify judicial [or Executive Branch]
legislation."
(Amherst v. Attorney General,
398 Mass. 793)

You
swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from
the other two branches.Your oath
itself declares that it is violated on penalty of
perjury, a felony.

¨We
urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the
obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon
the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 207, the marriage statute. We call
upon you to declare immediately in a formal written
executive order that the Goodridge court does not
have the authority to overrule the state constitution and
that same-sex marriage therefore remains against the law in
the state of Massachusetts.

¨We
urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from
the Office of the Governor declaring members of the
Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the
Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the
penalties of perjury -- a felony.

¨We
urge you to immediately notify the legislators, who openly
conspired against the Constitution in denying the first
marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

nIt
was a violation ofthe
oath of office, which is a constitutional
felony.

nIt
is acitizens'
constitutional petition, an initiative that remains
pending until brought to one of the five final actions,
which the Constitution requires.

nTheir
crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without
statute of limitations.

nUnless
they vote, you must call them into session on that
original marriage petition and will
order the state police to arrest them and bring them to
the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May
2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a
quorum).

The
signatories of this letter, sign here unto in the urgency of
this matter, for you to declare immediately that same-sex
"marriage" licenses issued in the state of Massachusetts are
in fact in violation of state law and are therefore not
legal.

Permission to post the edited letter was given to
me by the writer of the original letter, John
Haskins.